LG is announcing a new version of the Watch Urbane, the chunky Android Wear device it released this spring. The new version puts an ever so slightly bigger screen inside of a slightly smaller body. It’s able to do that by building some of the watch’s tech into its bands, which are no longer swappable. It’s inside one of those bands that you’ll find the most interesting addition to this model: a cellular radio.

The obvious questions are about: battery life (especially since it also has GPS), reception, size. It’s still early days. All these elements will improve. The bigger question, though: do you release a product before they actually *have* improved?

All told, Android Wear for iOS should work almost the same as it does for Android phones. You’ll get notifications from your favorite Google services like Gmail, Google Calendar and Google Now, as well as Apple’s Calendar, Google Fit, the weather, alarm, agenda, Translate and so forth. It’ll work with voice queries and you can change the watch face just as you can with the Android app. According to Google, you don’t need to have any of these apps installed; they’re all built into the iOS app itself (We’re guessing that you’ll be asked to login with your Google credentials and it’ll go from there). Any third party app notifications that show up on your iPhone will also show on the watch. However, if you want true native third party app syncing, apparently that’s still in the works.

This could be good for consumers and for Android Wear watch sales. Consumers who use iOS can chose additional watches, and Android Wear watches can now reach an expanded market. The bigger the market for smartwatches and wearables, the faster they’ll improve. Three big questions, however:

How many iPhone users will opt for an Android Wear watch? The reason to do so would be: price, fashion, utility (e.g., always-on display, cellular connectivity), or custom watch faces (for either fashion or utility purposes).

How good can iOS interoperability get over time? Today, iOS interoperability is fairly constrained. And though it may remain so, the nature of those constraints will likely evolve. Google’s ability to utilize iOS can improve, too. Finally, Android Wear developers can now try and impress a new set of customers.

Will Android Wear OEMs take specific action to capitalize on this? For them, it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand, it means more consumers can buy their watches. (Swatch, for instance, is probably quite pleased right now.) On the other hand, since most of the OEMs are smartphone makers, they’re giving consumers fewer reasons to buy an Android smartphone. Would they dare advertise this benefit? Can you imagine a Samsung or Motorola ad that highlights iOS compatibility? We’ll see.

These are all questions and possibilities. Let’s check back and see how this really develops.

Android Wear’s watch faces are getting a bit more interesting today. Developers were always able to display a lot of information on their watch faces, but users couldn’t interact with it. Starting today, however, you’ll be able to install interactive watch faces that allow you to pull up more information and launch apps with a tap right from the watch face (and developers will be able to build them).

Nice move. I think many consumers will value this, whether for fashion, fun, or utility. I’ve said before that I view the smartwatch as a tool. It delivers, in a phrase, fast utility. Allowing users to select or configure the specific watch face they want – even if the OS provider doesn’t make it – could be very valuable to many consumers. Apple doesn’t offer custom watch faces today, but I’m convinced it will. Until then, there’s this … It’s more on the “fun” side…

Google has today announced the introduction of 17 brand new watch faces for Android Wear, spanning brands such as Rubiks, Hello Kitty, Angry Birds, and more. Google says that there are already more than 1,500 watch faces available to customize your device, and now — lucky you! — there are 17 more options to choose from…

The Apple Watch offers a hierarchy of surfaces onto which software can compete for attention:

The Complication Layer

The Notification Layer

The Glances Layer

The App Screen

These surfaces are arranged in a hierarchy where the highest is the most accessible and the lowest is the least accessible. […]

It follows then that software which is located at the top of each hierarchy on each device will have the greatest exposure to user interaction and that the device which has the nearest proximity to the user will provide the greatest value to software developers.

This implies further that the most valuable “real estate” for software will be the Complication layer on the Watch. […]

You’ll note that the winners on the phone were different than the winners on the PC. My bet is that the winners on the Watch will be different than the winners on the Phone.

I would put the Watch Face at the top of this list. I’m guessing Horace didn’t mention it because it’s off limits to developers today. If you’ll bear with me, let me explain what seems obvious: Why the face is the most important layer.

First, consider that, once it meets our fashion requirements, a watch is a tool more than it is anything else. That’s because a watch is ill-suited for the other class of jobs a device can do — entertainment (audio aside). Unlike devices that enable both hands to be used (phones, tablets), the watch’s wrist-placement adds friction to most entertainment use cases. For instance, you have to try especially hard to keep it facing you.

On a device that’s a tool, the layer that has the most utility is king. That’s the watch face.

If one accepts that the watch is primarily a tool, it makes sense that the most valuable layer is the one that best embodies low-friction utility: the face. The face is low-friction because it’s the default view. The utility of the face comes from the fact that it displays a set of multiple, varied, structured, data elements. Some elements display the past (elapsed time), others anticipate the future (e.g., next meeting). So, the face is a set of information available in a moment’s notice. In a digital age sense, the face is a tool. No other information layer (complication, notification, glance element, or app screen) has the same default-ness and information density. On a device that’s a tool, the layer that has the most utility is king. That’s the watch face.

(Now, if you don’t consider the face, because it’s off limits to developers, then you’d have to consider the most-face-like contenders: an app that you might continously keep open on your watch, or a Complication.)

With this frame of reference, any hardware, OS, and application attributes that support this utility are especially valuable. Some examples:

Display area that is well suited to structured information and information density

Rectangular displays work well in this regard. They provide natural positions for information (corners) and the ability to keep segmented information aligned (e.g., left- or right-justified)

Today, both Android Wear and Apple watchOS have some, but not all, of these capabilities. Apple Watch, for instance, has a good selection of watch faces and complications. But it lacks custom faces and an always-on ambient mode — two high strengths of Android Wear. Android Wear also allows for independence from the phone.

The odds that Apple would deny developers access to the watch face are low.

Seeing so much value in the watch face (rather than a notification, a glance, or an app) brings me to two final predictions.

A. Whatever the #1 element is (watch face, in my estimate), the odds that Apple would *deny* developers access to it are low. Apple knows, I’m sure, that (developers) x (the most powerful information layer) = (tremendous number of high-value apps). Or if it doesn’t, examples from Android Wear will soon make that clear. I would be surprised if Apple didn’t allow 3rd party watch faces in the next two years.

B. With regard to Horace’s point about “winners” (apps) on the phone vs. the watch: While many games are “winners” on the phone, the list of winners on the watch will have a lower proportion of games and a higher proportion of tools / utility apps. The watch’s position on the wrist, and the limited way of interacting with it, lowers the odds that games will thrive in the same way they do on the phone. That’s not to say there won’t be some break-out successes, but on average, the watch appears better-suited to providing utility, rather than enabling games.

The list of [app] winners on the watch will have […] a higher proportion of tool / utility apps.

It’s exciting to witness what Apple and Android developers are going to create and invent to move this mobile device forward.

4. Inside Microsoft’s Secret Design Lab. No real secrets, but it’s always good to see how stuff gets prototyped. This sort of openess is one of the best things I’ve seen in years: Motorola, Microsoft, (and I’m sure I’m missing others) letting people see a little bit about how devices get made. I like Apple’s videos (e.g., glimpses of how the watch is manufactured), but those are factory settings (nothing wrong with factories), whereas I prefer the device labs.

Google is working on getting its Android Wear smartwatch platform to work with the iPhone, and it is close to finishing the final technical details, according to a source close to the development team. If Google released it and if Apple allowed it on its platform, it would put Android Wear smartwatches directly in competition with the soon-to-be-released Apple Watch for the first time.

Yes, of course this “leak” is timed to distract from the Apple Watch launch. But, if true, it’s fantastic for overall market development. The bigger the market for smartwatches and wearables, the faster they’ll improve.

“But would Apple let it happen?” is the sub-title of Dieter’s article. It’s an understandable thought, but easily dismissed, I think. Many, many devices have an iOS companion app. It’s 2015. If the Google app adheres to App Store rules, I’d be shocked if Apple blocked a companion app.